Lords Sitting of 14 May 1906

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Huddersfield Corporation Bill. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, &c.) [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Standing Orders Committee—Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect to the petition for additional provision in the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision.
Read, and agreed to.
Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Crellin's Patents Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a.
Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Hull and Barnsley Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.] Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
North Metropolitan Tramways Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Municipal Corporations Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. Read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 84.)

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools.
  Of teachers in schools in Preston; St. James, Burnley; Nelson; St. Andrews, Burnley; Tonbridge.
  Of parents and guardians of children at schools in Preston; Chatburn; St. Andrews, Burnley.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1905. PART 1. DISTRICT STATISTICS).
  Statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the inspection districts.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3583. United States (Philadelphia).
  No. 3584. Russia (St Petersburg).

  ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.)
  Report for the year 1904.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 83.)

  GREAT BRITAIN AND THE PORTE.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord

  99
  the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information to communicate to the House as to the position in the Sinai Peninsula.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZ-MAURICE): My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that an agreement has been come to in regard to the matters in dispute in the Sinai Peninsula and on the Turco-Egyptian frontier. The Porte has informed our Ambassador at Constantinople that it does not question the telegram of April 8th, 1902; that a joint Commission will be appointed to make a topographical survey and map with a view to fixing the boundaries, so as to secure the maintenance of the status quo on the basis of the telegram above mentioned, and that the boundary will run from Rafeh in a south-easterly direction and in approximately a straight line to a point not less than three miles from Akaba. The Grand Vizier has also informed His Majesty's Ambassador that Tabah and all the other places in the neighbourhood recently occupied by Turkish troops have been evacuated and the troops withrawn to Akaba. I have already informed the House that a promise had been received that the pillars at Rafeh will be restored. It will thus be seen that all the demands of His Majesty's Government have been fully met.

  HOME DEFENCE.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to call attention to the question of home defence and of compulsory service in the Militia within the United Kingdom. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Front Bench to the right of the Woolsack there always sit some distinguished Members of your Lordship's House who form part of the Government of the day. Now, what, my Lords, would you say was the most important duty that falls to the Government? I hold that their most important duty is the defence of the Empire at large, and the safety of our hearths and homes in this country. I put some questions on Friday night to my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to endeavour to ascertain whether or not this duty is attended to by His Majesty's
  100
  Government, and the answer I got was anything but satisfactory, though I am bound to say it was the answer I had every reason to expect.
  We have, I believe, eight so-called commands—that is to say, military districts—in England, Scotland, and Ireland. These commands ought to be ready at a moment's notice to take the field. I asked how long it would take before they could be ready. The answer I received was that it would be contrary to the public interest that this information should be given. I think that if it had been said that it was contrary to the interests of the War Office it would have been more to the purpose than to say that it was contrary to public interest, because, as regards the publication of the information I asked for, it is known to every Military Attaché in London. They know every man you have got, every gun you have got; and of your guns how many are serviceable? I am afraid I shall have to show that they are very few. This information, as I say, is known to every foreign representative in London and to foreigners abroad. Therefore, I think the reason it was withheld was that it would not be to the credit of the War Office that the truth should be known. On the other hand, if the answer was what it ought to be, that we get something for the £29,000,000 which we pay, and that our forces would be ready at twenty-four hours or forty-eight hours notice to mobilise, it is a thing which, instead of hiding, the Government should publish broadcast, for it would be a great element of safety and peace. Therefore, whichever way you take it—that it would be contrary to public interest to know what is known everywhere, or that the War Office dare not speak the truth —my noble friend's answer is equally unsatisfactory.
  I said on Friday night that I should endeavour to-day, as I had this matter to bring before the House, to get some information on the question. As regards foreign mobilisation, your Lordships have only to look at the St. James's Gazette of to-night, and you will find a complete analysis of French and German mobilisation. In German the whole Army can be mobilised in three days; in France it can be mobilised equally quickly; but what is not mentioned in this article is the state of Switzerland,

  101
  which is the most important of all. In Switzerland within from twenty-four to fourty-eight hours they can mobilise the whole of their forces to meet the enemy, and in forty-eight hours they can mobilise what they call their land-sturm. Now, my Lords, what can we do? I will road an extract from a letter I have received. The writer says—
  "To talk of mobilising our Army is rubbish. There is no Army; that is to say, there are no corps and no divisions except on paper. The minimum allowance for any one Army corps is eighty-four guns, and we have not sixty guns up-to-date in the whole country."
  Is that or is that not true? I am afraid it is true. We now understand why my noble friend did not answer the Question put to him. To talk of mobilisation is a farce and an absurdity. You have not got the guns up to date, and, at the outset, even with the moans you have, the time that would be taken to bring these corps together would be a fortnight or three weeks. Therefore, it is evident that my question could not be answered, because there are no means of mobilisation and the forces are absolutely without the necessary equipment.
  I have always taken the greatest interest in this question of home defence. My soul has been in travail over the state of things for the last fifty years, and it seems to me as bad now as ever. When it was proposed that Volunteers should come forward I rushed forward with many thousand others, because we felt the necessity so strongly. Time went on, and nothing more was done. You traded on the Volunteers. In 1871 I wrote a letter to The Times to say that if nothing more was done, and if the Government did not put in force the law of the land, the best thing the Volunteers could do would be to resign. I waited on, and in 1900 I resigned my commission, because I would not be a party to a sham, for I think we are a sham in the present state of the Volunteers. Those who know the Duke of Norfolk, who presided over the recent Commission, are well aware that his opinion is that the present state of things is not reliable.
  That being the case, is anything being done at the present time? Yes. Further inquiries are being made. A new Commission has been issued by the War Office, a Commission large enough for general concealment. I think there are
  102
  twenty-three members. What is it they are going to inquire into? They are going to inquire into the question of the creation of a territorial Army. I should have thought the inquiries by Lord Elgin's Commission and by the Duke of Norfolk's Commission would have been sufficient; but not so. The War Office want more than that. Of the twenty-three members who constitute this new Commission, Colonel Lord Esher is at the head. I do not know who is at the bottom, but Lord Roberts is somewhere in the middle. And this Commission is to inquire about a territorial Army. I do not wish to enter into the question of a striking Army. I only hope that when you talk of a striking Army you do not intend that we Englishmen should go to the Continent and fight the nations in arms there. If you speak of a striking Army for India, it will not be by only an Army from England that you will hold India against Russia, but by the loyalty of the people of India to our Government and by the fighting races in that country. Remember what happened at the time of the Munity. Then it was not England that saved India; it was Lord Lawrence, by the organisation of the Sikhs. You must in the same way rely now on the native races.
  This Commission is to invent a territorial Army for this country. Why, my Lords, you have that Army now. What is the Militia? Is not that England's territorial Army? Has it not been so from time immemorial? Is it not so now? If you give it life and carry out the existing law, the Militia is the territorial Army of this country. You tried, indeed, to get rid of it two years ago and failed. Having tried to get rid of it by absorbing the Militia into the regular Army, you then tried to change its constitution, and whereas the Militia was raised for Home Defence only, and might go abroad voluntarily, you tried immediately before the dissolution to change its constitution absolutely, so that when a man was once in the Militia he could be ordered to go anywhere. That was a great revolution, from which we have been saved as yet, and the Government in that were supported by colonels of Militia regiments.
  But, my Lords, you now have this force, and instead of trying to absorb it and alter its constitution, it would be better to give it its full powers. The existing

  103
  law should be put into operation. I would rather quote other words than my own on this matter. What was said on this subject in the year 1902? This—
  "Hit the nail on the head. Modified compulsory service at home and voluntary service abroad—such a scheme is the solution of all our difficulty. First of all, it solves the problem of recruiting. It also solves the question of expense. It is cheaper; it enables you to train the Militia and Volunteers, and bring them up to whatever state of efficiency you please."
  That was what this gentleman said, and I think that any man who has studied this question will agree with that. In that sentence lies the whole military question, and if you only have the courage and manliness to propose it, the whole difficulty is solved in a way that every statesman from Pitt to Palmerston, and every soldier from Wellington to Wolseley, has believed to be sound. The speaker I have quoted went on, however, to say—
  "I realise that any system of compulsory service is now absolutely out of the question."
  That was in 1902. In March this year a very distinguished Member of your Lordship's House, still more distinguished as Foreign Minister, to whom we cannot give too much praise, Lord Lansdowne; speaking in a Militia debate, said—
  "I have often ventured to tell your Lordships that in my opinion compulsory service was net likely to be regarded with favour in this country, and I for one shall base my hopes on the attempts of the Government to solve this Militia problem without having recourse to compulsion in any shape or form."
  This, I thought at the time, was a remarkable speech coming from a noble Lord whom, when Secretary of State for War, I heard say that the power of ballot for the Militia was a power with which he would not readily part; and further it came more strangely from a noble Lord who, when Minister for War, laid on the Table of the House a Bill for improving and bringing up to date ballot for the Militia. It is true he left that Bill derelict, but, nevertheless, that was a strange assertion coming from Lord Lansdowne.
  I would like to ask on what authority these two legislators I have quoted based their assertion that the nation would not agree to any form of compulsion. Have they ever asked the nation? Have they ever made a speech declaring it necessary
  104
  and had it negatived, at any public meeting or anywhere else? No, my Lords. They gratuitously libel the patriotism of the people by this statement on their part. I am going to make a statement to the contrary, and it rests on facts which cannot be controverted. I will take only three instances, though I have spoken on the subject in the country hundreds of times. The Shaftesbury Park Estate, near London, is one the whole of the houses on which were built, not out of the rates, but by working men themselves——
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH)dissented.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The noble Earl shakes his head.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but the Shaftesbury Park Estate was part of an estate belonging to the Artisan Industrial Dwellings Company; the houses were built by a company of which I happened to be a director.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: At any rate when I was addressing these working men I preached the doctrine that it was the duty of every Englishman to stand forth, if necessary compulsorily, in defence of his country. I will not trouble your Lordships with what I said, but the substance of it was this, that if any Government would have the patriotism and the courage to stand forth and say that in their opinion this was necessary to make the country safe from invasion, there was no doubt that it would be accepted. My statement was greeted with universal cheering. That was the view of working men in 1875. In 1892 I sent round a list of questions to Lords - Lieutenant, county authorities, urban authorities, provosts and chief magistrates. Some 400 circulars were sent out, and these two questions were asked—(1) Are you satisfied with the present state of things from the military point of view? (2) Do you think that the people in this country would accept, in a modified form, compulsory service for home defence? To the first question 75 per

  105
  cent, answered "No," and to the latter two to one answered "Yes."
  I now come to the third instance, which gives a contradiction to the libel upon our race. I thought I would test it in the best way one could, and in the month of October I addressed a meeting in the market town of Haddington, the constituency of the present Secretary of State for War, and that meeting unanimously passed the following Resolution—
  "That, this meeting approves of compulsory service in the Army in the modified form suggested by Lord Wemyss, and is further of opinion that a matter so vital as home defence should never be made a Party question."
  At that meeting, which was presided over by a Colonel of Volunteers, a letter was read from the Lord-Lieutenant, in which he said—
  "I agree that we must look principally to the Militia, which must be a real territorial Army. Although I am opposed to compulsory service in the Regular Army, I think the old system of ballot should be resorted to for the Militia, in which men should serve for some three years."
  The reading of that letter was received with applause by Mr. Haldane's constituents. I therefore venture to think I have proved my case, which is that if the people of this country are patriotically appealed to they will answer the appeal, and that to say the contrary without any grounds except a foolish belief, a wrongful belief, is a libel, a cowardly, base libel on the people of this country. I stand to this, and defy contradiction.
  I now wish to say a word or two upon the "Blue-water" school. We know full well that Mr. Balfour, when occupying the position of self-constituted head of our Defence Committee, plunged head over heels into the blue water, and I am sorry to see that Mr. Haldane has done the same thing. They are both swimming about in blue water. Your Lordships last year took a more rational and sensible view of this question. Here is the Resolution which your Lordships then passed, which I think is the really sound common-sense view of the question—
  "It would he a danger to the realm and limit the power of the Navy as an offensive force in war to trust to it alone for home defence, and inasmuch as it is admitted that the Navy cannot guarantee us against so-called hostile raids, it is most needful that our land defence should at all times He such that no
  106
  nation would ever attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores."
  That is the state in which we ought to be, and that is the state in which, as Lord Portmouth knows, we are not. It was this feeling which led your Lordships last year to pass that Resolution.
  What is needed on the part of the War Office is this. In the first place trust, and not distrust, in the patriotism of the people. This stood you in good stead in 1859, when you summoned the Volunteers, whose loyalty you are still trading upon, looking to their being a striking force somehow abroad. They did not fail you then, nor did the patriotism of the people fail you in the late war in South Africa. I am not complaining of this Government in particular. They have not had time to do anything except to take a plunge into the blue water. Every Government since I have taken an interest in this subject, some fifty or sixty years, has been in fault in distrusting the people of the country. The existing law of compulsory service for home defence should be enforced. I do not think it is necessary that the present ballot, which takes in men from eighteen to forty-five, should be acted up to. All that I proposed in addressing the meeting at Haddington, and all that I propose now, is that when a boy reaches the age of nineteen he should take the chance once in his life of ballot for the Militia.
  Do not count on time for preparation. Mr. Haldane seems inclined to take half-trained men, and believes he will have time to train them. Whoever comes here will come without a declaration of war. The enemy will come like a thief in the night, and you will have no time of any sort or kind for preparation. Do not trust to miniature rifle clubs, which may be all very well in their way. Teaching every boy in this country to hit a bullseye will not save you from the troops who will come in the night. Do not rely upon half-trained men. Rather than that, invite the volunteers who have served, who have been efficient, and who are under forty, to come forward as a reserve to be called upon to appear annually without uniform at the inspection of the regiment most convenient to them. That is better than the half-trained men whom Lord Roberts proposes. I asked the Colonel of my regiment to find out how many men would be able to turn up in

  107
  that way. He said that 6,860 men had passed through the ranks of the London Scottish alone since 1859. I believe you would get a force of 500,000 men if need be, men who had all passed as fully trained men and earned the capitation grant.
  Then I say, leave nothing to chance. You cannot leave the safety of the nation to chance. You must guard it in every possible way. Have ample guns up to date. You have not more than sixty guns up to date at this moment, whereas a German Army corps has eighty-nine. Your supply of long-shooting guns, which are essential, is very far from what it ought to be. You should render raids and invasion alike impossible through your land defences, thus freeing the Navy, and for every warship built by Germany build two, and maintain the Empire. Armaments should be taken out of the arena of party, like diplomacy. Sir Edward Grey, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is following in the footsteps of that excellent Foreign Minister, his predecessor. What are diplomatists without an armed backing? They are nothing but blank cartridges, and the diplomatist who has a strong backing, like Sir Edward Grey at the present moment in the Turco-Egyptian crisis, will carry the day. Therefore, I say that both sides of the House ought to unite in agreeing as to what is necessary, and, having agreed, support each other in the policy of armament as well as diplomacy.
  Lastly, when thoroughly prepared and impregnable on land, seek to bring about international disarmament. You cannot do that now. Germany would laugh in your face, for they know what your state is at the War Office When you are strong at home you can with good faith approach foreign countries and ask them to enter into an agreement for disarmament, but not until you are in that position dare you face them. I should like all Governments to remember this, that they are but the trustees, the temporary, responsible trustees, of this great Empire, and that it is their first duty to keep the defences of the Empire in such a state that no nation would ever dream of a hostile landing.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I rise to say a few words on a matter
  108
  connected with the selection of the Committee referred to by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I wish to call attention to the way in which the Yeomanry force has been treated in the appointment of that Committee, and to say that there is not a single acting colonel of an English Yeomanry regiment appointed upon it. Considering the number of Yeomanry regiments there are in England, I think it is somewhat invidious that both the colonels of Yeomanry regiments in Scotland, for whom I have every respect, should be appointed on the Committee, whilst no English Yeomanry Colonel is included. I contend that this is not treating the Yeomanry force in England in the manner they deserve. I am not raising this question in any personal sense. I think your Lordships will realise that it is not quite the way to treat fifty-six English and Welsh Yeomanry regiments to appoint two acting colonels from Scotland on this Committee and none from England.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I do not know how far the noble Viscount who has just sat down was in order in making that appeal to me, but it is not my wish to stand upon any strict question of order. All I can say in reply to my noble friend is that I am unable to give him an answer at the-present moment, but I will see that the views ho has put forward are carefully considered in the proper quarter. We certainly do not wish to do, or seem to do, any injustice to any branch of the service.
  With regard to the speech of the noble Earl, I am afraid I must maintain the attitude which I assumed on Friday. I cannot be drawn into giving your Lordships or my noble friend any figures of mobilisation, and, not knowing beforehand what figures the noble Lord intended to give, I am not prepared to refute them in detail. But on hearing on Friday from the lips of my noble friend the announcement that he intended to give to your Lordships the information which I had withheld, I took the first opportunity of consulting our military advisers at the War Office, and for the satisfaction of the public I wish to say that we have a mobilisation scheme under which it is hoped that we can mobilise as quickly as can any continental nation.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Why did you not say that on Friday?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Further than that, my Lords, schemes have been prepared for the defence of all defended ports, which it is confidently anticipated will be in a position to resist any sudden attack made upon them. I should like to add that these schemes have been drawn up with the full concurrence of the Admiralty, and that the two services are entirely in accord as to the measures which should be taken for the defence of the country. As regards the question of compulsory service in the Militia within the United Kingdom, the propositions which the noble Lord has brought before the House with his accustomed energy and ability are not unfamiliar to your Lordships. My noble friend has repeatedly brought up this question of the Militia Ballot. In 1899, the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Lansdowne, introduced a Militia Ballot Bill which was designed to make the machinery for enforcing the Act in case of necessity more workable; the Second Reading was not, however, proceeded with. In 1903, the Duke of Devonshire informed my noble friend that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with his Militia Ballot Bill. Since that time, no serious allusion has been made to the prospect of any Bill relating to the Ballot being brought forward, from either side of the House, and I ought to state that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill of such a character.
  I was glad to have the opportunity, which was afforded to mo on a previous occasion by my noble friend Lord Hardinge, to assure the House that it is the wish and intention of His Majesty's Government to raise both the status and the position of the Militia. We are anxious to give them the character, by any future measures which we are considering, but which I am not in a position at present to state to the House, of a highly organised military force, believing as we do that the Militia, as was proved by the South African War, is the force which is best adapted as a support to the Regular Army, not merely for services at home, but abroad.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Compulsory?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I will come to that point. At the same time, I would wish to repeat what I have said on a previous occasion, that we are fully alive to the necessity of maintaining in the Militia their own separate traditions and esprit de corps. We do not desire that they should be absorbed in the Regular Army, but we are anxious that they should, both by their organisation and training, be prepared to take the field in self-contained units.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: By order?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I understand that the noble Earl is opposed to conscription.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: What do you call conscription?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I mean by conscription what your Lordships and the majority of the people in the country mean.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Perhaps I may explain that I am opposed to conscription to any extent for the Army. I am opposed to conscription for the Militia, if that conscription means that you are to order them, like the Army, abroad. I hold that conscription should take the form of ballot for the Militia, the old constitutional force of the country.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think I fairly stated the case when I said that the noble Earl is opposed to inscription. But, be that as it may, His Majesty's Government believes that this proposal of the Militia Ballot is open to objections quite as practical as conscription, plus, if I may be allowed to say so, the additional inconvenience which would arise from the uncertainty to our labouring population, as well as to employers of labour, as to who would and who would not be liable. Any attempt to enforce the ballot in time of peace would, in our opinion, have the effect of a capricious interference with the industrial life of the country.
  My noble friend in his Notice has associated the Militia especially with the question of home defence. I am not

  111
  disposed to look to the Militia for home defence, as I am to the other Auxiliary Forces. The noble Earl has, this afternoon, attacked what I suppose, for purposes of brevity I may call the "blue-water school." Now, I wish to dissociate myself entirel'y from what I may call the views of the "blue-water extremists." I wish to repudiate as such what I may describe as the "dinghy theory." I do wish, however, most emphatically to affirm the principle upon which rests, in my mind, the only intelligent basis for national defence—that the Navy is, as it always has been, the natural guardian, and the first and only reliable defence for the United Kingdom againstoversea invasion. So long as our present relative naval strength is maintained—that is to say, our relative strength as compared with the naval forces of other countries—there is no need for other provision against this form of danger. This principle has become the property of responsible advisers of the Crown of both political parties. It formed the basis of a most interesting, speech to which my noble friend incidentally referred, from the late Prime Minister in the House of Commons. The principle of that speech has been accepted by His Majesty's Government——
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Not by the House of Lords.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The principle of that speech has been accepted by His Majesty's Government, and, as my noble friend, I think, will remember, has been re-affirmed in most cogent language by the Secretary of State for War in another place. To assume the position that we do not and cannot rely upon the Navy, and that we must strive, as was suggested by the speech of my noble friend, after an impossible compromise between naval and military defence is, to my mind, hopelessly to confuse national policy. Our naval expenditure is, and must be, a very heavy one; if it is only to be partly effective in securing us against invasion, if that is the idea which is to be instilled into the public mind, I believe that the only practical result will be that the taxpayers will refuse to sanction a heavy naval expenditure, which we maintain is necessary to our national safety, but can only be defended on the ground of its affording,
  112
  not only protection to our commerce on the high seas and to the scattered members of the Empire against invasion, but also to guard our shores at home. Oversea invasion has never been, and never will be, carried out in face of a Navy exercising control at sea, and it is vital to our existence that we should be prepared to assist this control. The greater includes the less, and in discharging its primary duty, our Navy will necessarily accomplish the smaller task of defending our shores against invasion.
  It is a matter of recent history that the extravagant expenditure upon fortifications which was incurred under Lord Palmerston's policy, much of which expenditure is now absolutely wasted because the guns and forts are perfectly obsolete or in the wrong place, did distract the public mind from the importance of our Navy, and did necessitate our having to remedy the condition of our Navy by great efforts and by large expenditure. The Navy Estimates had dropped far below those of the Army, and it was only in the Estimates of 1895–96 that the expenditure of the Navy rose to that of the Army. I should like to recall your Lordship's attention to the action of Parliament during, within modern history, the most anxious years of our national life. It is a curious thing to note that in 1786, when our Navy was not either actually or relatively so strong as it is now, but when the nation knew what war implied, in spite of an agitation to expend large sums of money upon fortifications, in spite of our having recently confronted a combination of four powers—France, America, Spain and Holland—in addition to the menace of a combination of Northern States, the House of Commons at that time declined to support heavy demands for military expenditure against oversea invasion, even though these demands were urged by Mr. Pitt himself. I must decline to admit, as a risk which is so reasonably probable as to be worth our considering, any invasion of these islands, so long as we have the command of the sea, and I wish to reaffirm the memorable words of the Duke of Devonshire at the Guildhall on December 3rd, 1896, that—
  "The maintenance of sea supremacy has been assumed as the basis of the system of Imperial Defence against attack from over the sea."

  113
  If it is contended that we ought to provide against the possibility of what happened in South Africa—namely, that some foreign power or powers could do as we did, pour troops into this island in a continuous stream as we did into South Africa, unmolested and undisturbed from the sea; if that is to be guarded against as not only a possible but a probable contingency, it is perfectly obvious that the people of this country must be prepared to accept a similar military system such as prevails on the Continent. We must be prepared to accept the direct and the indirect cost of becoming a nation in arms. I do not myself believe that that is a sacrifice which this country is prepared to make, and I think it would be very wrong to ask the country to make it, because I believe it would be a perfectly unnecessary sacrifice. Nor is there one particle of evidence from the history of this country that our Army has ever been or ever could be our weapon against invasion.
  The history of that Army is a splendid one—I think I may say one which is unparalleled in the history of the world. It has conquered for us an Empire greater than that of Rome. But everyone of its long and brilliant series of operations has been carried on beyond our naval frontier. If it has fought with vigour and confidence in very part of the world it has done so because it has known that behind it stood the Navy, which is the real defensive force of the nation. I must reaffirm the principle that we must look to the Navy and not to the Army to secure us against invasion. At the same time, my Lords, the Army Council are fully alive to the danger which was referred to by my noble friend. We feel that raids, though not probable, ought to be fully considered and amply provided against.
  Now, I should like to analyse what is meant by a raid. What would be the, conditions under which a raid could be I made by a foreign Power to the best advantage, and what is the sort of raid which it would be worth their while to make? It is, according to the opinion of our military advisers, most probable that the raider would have to sacrifice the whole of a raiding force. This country is densely intersected by well-equipped railways, which, on the alarm being given, would be able to bring
  114
  forces together against the raider. We have heard a great deal about supposed raids upon undefended places, such as Brighton and Hastings. Suppose a successful raid took place on places of that kind. Considerable local inconvenience might be caused: possibly some loot might be carried off; but the exploit would be merely that of the buccaneer. No serious damage would have been inflicted upon this country as a fighting power. In fact, an outrage of that kind would create such an intensity of feeling as to evoke a martial spirit where such had not existed before, if an enemy is to make a raid, I think we must presume, having regard to the fact that he will have to run a very serious risk of losing his raiding force, that he will attack some port where during a short period he might hope to render very serious damage to the national resources of the country. Of course, if an enemy were in undisturbed possession for a few hours of, say, the dockyard at Portsmouth or at Elswick, on the Tyne, very serious damage would be done to the fighting efficiency of the country.
  I shall not, of course—it would not be consistent with the public service—make public any details, but I should like to assure my noble friend that experiments have been recently made with a view to ascertaining how long it would take to land a force of 10,000 men, with their guns, unopposed. The result of those experiments has been to show that it would be impossible to land any force of that kind without interruption, provided that the Channel Fleet was within touch of our shores. Let us take, however, the most favourable circumstances for a raid. Daring a war it is inconceivable that the Channel Fleet would be out of touch with these shores; let us suppose, therefore, that either Portsmouth or the Tyne were raided by some foreign Power during a time of profound peace when there was no cloud over international relations; that they could make all their preparations in private, and that our agents abroad had not the slightest suspicion that anything exceptional was taking place. Let us suppose that on some fine summer morning, with the Channel Fleet at the extremity of its orbit, a hostile force was suddenly to appear off Portsmouth or the Tyne. Under circumstances of that kind—the

  115
  most favourable for a raid—we should still have several hours to summon the naval war ships that we now keep by policy at the home ports requiring only to raise steam to be fit for action, and we should still have several hours to reinforce our garrisons. I do not wish to throw over the eyes of the public any bandage of false security, but surely, my Lords, unreasonable pessimism leads to nothing practical and only obstructs the support which is needed for reasonable and moderate schemes. The sea is no impassable barrier, but in war it is surely reasonable probabilities, and not every improbable possibility, which have to be taken into consideration.
  I do not know why my noble friend has, as it were, coupled the Militia specially with home defence, considering the numerous cases in which it has rendered distinguished services abroad. I look to the Militia much more as a support and adjunct to the Regular Army for service over-sea in times of great national emergency. I look to the Volunteers as the main resource for our home defence. I should like to see—and we are considering the matter very fully —a scheme worked out for utilising the Volunteers for coast defence against raids, not in a vague, indefinite, and general way, but in accordance with a plan by which the coast within a certain distance of those places of which, perhaps, Portsmouth and the Tyne are typical, and of which others exist, such as Barrow, Liverpool and Pembroke Dock, and whore an enemy in possession for a few hours could strike at the fighting efficiency of the nation, could be protected by the Volunteers.
  In these places on Saturday afternoons the Volunteers should practice with the heavy guns in the coast forts, so as to be perfectly familiar and ready to handle them at any time. I attach great importance to the utilisation of the Volunteers for coast defence not only as a sedentary force, but as organised mobile bodies capable of being moved rapidly to any threatened point. Above all, if some such scheme were evolved, and I believe it is practicable, owing to our large and highly efficient railway systems, you will have given to the Volunters a part in our national life, with definite objects at which to aim. The Volunteers are a highly intelligent class of men, and they
  116
  will take pride in the knowledge that they are an integral part of the national strength, and are trusted with specific duties of an important nature.
  To sum up, I think we can reasonably look to the Navy for defence against invasion. To protect ourselves against raids where raids would touch the power of the nation we must, I think, rely upon the local fortifications, assisted possibly in some cases by submarines, and upon an organisation which would bring into play the resources of our railway system and the intelligence, activity, and fighting efficiency of the Volunteers.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who initiated this debate, in a, speech of a somewhat discoursive but extremely vigorous nature, expressed opinions which we have frequently heard in this House before. My noble friend who replied for the Government has done so in a very elaborate written or printed treatise, which deals largely with questions, of high Imperial strategy, but which I venture to think has very little to do with the Notice on the Paper, which really concerns the Militia. It is not so long ago that we had a debate upon the Militia and upon the parlous condition in which that force now finds itself, a condition upon which I submit the speech we have just listened to throws remarkably little light. If any further facts were needed to prove the parlous condition in which the Militia now is, I might quote the case of my noble friend whom I see sitting upon the Front Opposition Bench, Lord Salisbury, who is, or was a short time ago, a colonel of a Militia regiment, and who offered 2s. 6d. a head for recruits just as though they were plovers' eggs or some delicacy of that description.
  With regard to what has fallen from the noble Lord who represents the Government, I submit that my noble friend Lord Wemyss has received no answer at all. The noble Earl devoted a considerable portion of his reply principally to exposing the weakness of the Militia ballot, with which my noble friend Lord Wemyss is so closely associated. So far as I know, although I am always particularly anxious to agree with my noble friend Lord Wemyss whenever it is possible, he is practically the only person in this country that I am

  117
  acquainted with who is in favour of the Militia ballot. It is altogether an antiquated and exploded idea, and therefore it was quite unnecessary on the part of Lord Portsmouth to assure the House that the Government had no intention of bringing in a Bill introducing this principle.
  The real reply to the complaints about the Militia and to the general unsatisfactory state of the Auxiliary Forces, is the appointment of that Committee which has been already alluded to this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Galway, and it is perfectly marvellous, to my mind, to notice the sort of superstitious veneration which appears to be felt by innumerable people in this country with regard to these eternal Committees and Commissions. I am disposed to believe that if we were told that a foreign army had landed in this country, and if the Minister representing the War Office were to come down to this House and announce that a Committee had been appointed with the noble Viscount Lord Esher at the head of it to study the question, that would reassure a vast number of persons in this country. For my part, I confess that I have ceased to feel any confidence at all in these repeated Committees and Commissions, and were I to imitate the somewhat uncourtly language of the present Prime Minister, I should be inclined to exclaim, with regard to all these Committees and Commissions, "Enough of this foolery."
  If the Committee referred to this afternoon were composed of really sound people—and by that I mean sound according to my own ideas—I might entertain some faint hope that something useful would result from it; but I observe with pain and surprise that it is an extremely unsatisfactory Committee, because there are persons upon it who are what I can only denominate fanatical supporters of the voluntary system. I observe, for instance, that my friend Sir Howard Vincent is a Member of this Committee. Well, Sir Howard Vincent's weakness is that he thinks the country, and the whole British Empire so far as that goes, exists for the benefit of the Volunteers, and more especially for that particular battalion which he used to command.
  118
  I observe that there are also upon this Committee Members of this House, personal friends of my own, with whose views I regret to say I am not at all in sympathy, and whom also, I am afraid, I must look upon as unsound persons. But there is one person upon it who is more dangerous and more pernicious than any-else body living in this country, and that is the editor of the Spectator, Mr. Strachey, who is responsible for the preposterous and absurd doctrine that all that we require in this country is a large number of persons with broad-brimmed hats, with rifles hanging up on pegs, which rifles they are going to take down at the necessary moment and shoot the invaders, and then return to their ordinary vocations. To me the appearance of these names upon a Committee is of sinister import, and I am afraid that very little substantial benefit is likely to accrue from it.
  I should like to know what there is to inquire about. If you wish to know what the Auxiliary Forces want, even I can tell you that. There is hardly anybody in this country who can read and write who cannot tell you what the Auxiliary Forces want. I could put it in blunt language in one sentence. What the Auxiliary Forces want is quite reasonable; they want more money, and they want to do the same amount of work and no more than they are doing at present. Everyone who has had official experience knows that this is perfectly true, and I do not see that they are to be blamed for it, considering that the vast majority of the able-bodied men in this country do nothing whatever. If you want to know what ought to be done you have got it in black and white. For two years the Norfolk Commission sat examining into the condition of the Auxiliary Forces, and you have got their Report upon record. I am almost sick of referring to this Report, but I think I must even once more trouble the House with what they actually said, because in my humble opinion this is the only Commission and the only Report which ever has been or will be of any permanent value to this country.
  The Norfolk Commission reported that if we wanted, as we professed we wanted, a home defence army, capable, in the absence of the whole or the greater portion of the Regular forces, of protecting the country against invasion, it could

  119
  only be raised and maintained on the principle that it is the duty of every citizen of military age and sound physique to be trained for the national defence and to take part in it should emergency.arise. In that you have all that you will ever find out, and, so long as you ignore this finding, all your Commissions will do you no good whatever. The only result will be that you will add to the mass of literature on the subject, and you may possibly send up your Estimates, but the the long and the short of it will be that we shall find ourselves in precisely the same position as we are in at the present moment.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lord, I only rise to point out that the splendid deeds performed by our Army, which the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War so justly praised, could not have been done without the assistance of the Merchant Service; but, though the Merchant Service is a most important auxiliary force, it has been absolutely neglected.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, the country is indebted to the noble Earl for the persistent way in which he has brought before your Lordships the inadequate state of the defences of this country. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War has told us that expert opinion is against the possibility of any largely successful raid on the shores of this country. May I recall your Lordships' recollection to instances where expert opinion has been wrong, instances which have occurred within the last five years? How many men were considered necessary by expert opinion for the defeat of the Boers? How many men did expert opinion state could be successfully moved on the line of railway into Manchuria? I had the honour, my Lords, of commanding the Natal Volunteers in driving the Boers out of Natal. As we came to homestead after homestead that had been devastated, with the little relics of the home torn into fragments, I heard the Natal men say, "When we go back home after this war is over we shall have compulsory service in Natal." Compulsory service is instituted now in Natal, and in place of the 600 or 700 Volunteers which Natal could find for the South African War, she can now
  120
  put her hand upon several thousand armed men. Natal learnt her lesson and applied it. I do not think it is necessary for this country to go as far as Natal in instituting compulsory service, but I do consider that she would be wise in compulsorily training the youth of the country to military discipline and to a knowledge of the rifle, so that if occasion required they might flock to the colours with, at all events, a certain knowledge of the duties of the soldier.
  I consider myself that our insular position will always give us time for a certain measure of preparation. There have been, or rather there are, two schools of thought in this country which have prevented adequate military defence. One school of thought is composed of those who believe that it is impossible to make a soldier without long and continuous training. The other school of thought is opposed to all military service whatsoever, as it considers that it leads people in the direction of militarism. These two schools of thought have prevented this country being freed from all danger of aggression; but has not the time now come when a third school of thought should arise which realises that an Empire can be but a paper Empire unless it is de fended by an armed and organised manhood, a school of thought which should insist upon the Government organising the people, not in the direction of militarism, but in the direction of common sense, organising them so that the manhood of the nation can be utilised in a cheap and efficient manner.
  Whatever form of military service may be instituted in this country the one great difficulty that any Government will experience is in the provision of leaders. Leaders cannot be improvised, and it is curious to note in this connection that this country possesses a larger leisured class who have not to earn their daily bread than any other nation in the world. I trust that the Government, if leaders sufficient for our Auxiliary forces do not present themselves, will institute a little compulsion in the direction of the ballot on those gentlemen who are possessed of sufficient means so that if these were killed in action their families at all events would not be dependent upon the rates for their support.
  It is six and a half years since what is called the black week of December, 1899.

  121
  Is the country adequately defended yet? Have those years been utilised to the best advantage? We may not get another six and a half years in which to muddle and waste our time. The present Government has a great chance of creating a citizen Army on cheap and efficient lines. From what I hear I believe that the present Secretary of State for War is inclined in the direction which I have indicated. I trust this is so. If it is, and if the Government support him and we do defend our Empire with its armed manhood, I am sure this Government will deserve the thanks and the confidence of the country.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, after the very full, and, if I may say so, very interesting, description of our naval and military position which was given by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, and of the method which he conceives should be pursued, and which I humbly agree should be pursued, in dealing with it, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes on the present occasion. I merely rise to express my agreement for what it is worth, with the opinions which the noble Earl put forward, and to wish him success in carrying them to practical conclusions. We are getting quite accustomed to the sort of debate that we have had this afternoon. There are a great many schools of thought in connection with the idea of compulsory service, and we have had speeches from representatives of three of those schools this afternoon. One cannot help being struck by the considerable manner in which the various schools of thought disagree among themselves. The noble Earl who initiated this discussion is in favour of a particular form of compulsory service—ballot for the Militia alone—and I think I gathered from a chance remark he made last year in the course of a similar debate that he would like to see the Volunteers abolished altogether. My noble friend Lord Newton, who took the noble Earl Lord Wemyss to task for standing alone in the opinion he holds, seems to glory in a similar isolation himself.
  LORD NEWTON: I am by no means isolated.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The noble Lord, if I may use the phrase without any intention of being offensive, is a "whole hogger" in the matter of compulsory service. The noble and gallant Earl who has just sat down occupies, I think, a midway position, a position in which I know he finds support in certain uninfluential quarters. He favours, not whole hoggism, not ballot for the Militia alone, but some compulsion being exerted upon the youth of the country. I say at once that I have no sympathy with the believers in any of these schools of thought; and I think we should none of us be called upon to regard the question of compulsory service too seriously until there is at any rate some sort of agreement amongst the various Members of your Lordships' House and those interested in the question outside upon the main tenets of the policy.
  I only rose to refer to two points in the speech of the noble Earl who initiated this discussion. The noble Earl is continually urging upon us that we have no right to say that putting in force the ballot in this country would be unpopular, because we have never tried it. To that I answer that our ancestors tried it and found it extremely unpopular. In the middle of the eighteenth century the Ballot Act was passed and put into force, and there were riots all over the country at once. So serious did those riots become that history relates that two men were hanged at York for what was called obstructing the Ballot Act. My sympathy is entirely with those two men, and although I do not think that I could pledge myself to go so far in resisting the Ballot Act if the noble Earl and his colleagues put it forward tomorrow, I think I can safely say that I should make great efforts to encourage somebody else to get himself hanged in the same cause.
  Another claim which is made by the noble Earl, and which has been made before on several occasions, I should like to refer to for one moment. He claims that the Motion, part of which he read, which was accepted by your Lordships last year, pledged the House to a decision contrary to the policy laid down by my right hon. friend the late Prime Minister last year, and upon which His Majesty's present advisers have set their seal. He

  123
  claims, in fact, that it is a rebuff of the blue-water school as moderate men understand it. The Resolution of last year was very cleverly drawn. I read it, I might almost say, hundreds of times in the hope of being able to find even one word which would perhaps haveencouraged us to ask your Lordships not to accept it, but after a very careful perusal I could find not one single word which was contrary to what we believe to be the true principles of our naval and military position. It was upon that basis that His Majesty's Government last year recommended its acceptance to the House. I presume it was on that basis that noble Lords who then sat on this side of the House offered no objection to it, and it is in that spirit I claim your Lordships should always regard it.

  THE ROYAL DRAGOONS.
  THE EARL OF ERROLLrose to call attention to the promotion of an Infantry captain to a majority in the Royal Dragoons: and to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, if no regimental officers wore available, there were no Cavalry officers on the list for accelerated promotion, or who for other reasons, were eligible to fill the vacancy.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name I should like to assure your Lordships, in the first instance, that I am actuated by no personal motives whatever. I have no interest in this case one way or the other, and I have merely brought it before your Lordship's House in what I consider to be the best interests of the Cavalry. Nor have I any wish to criticise the gallant officer to whom my question refers. On the contrary, I believe he is a most excellent staff officer and has rendered valuable service to his country. He is a Member of the Distinguished Service Order, and has passed through the Staff College; but what I object to, and what every Cavalry officer I have come across during the last fortnight or three weeks resents, is the promotion of an Infantry captain over the heads of highly-trained and efficient cavalry soldiers who have proved their quality by prolonged service in the field.
  This is a practice which casts reflection on every officer in the Cavalry and is extremely detrimental to that branch.
  124
  It gives rise to feelings of insecurity, and drives many good men out of the service. For this alone it is a matter to be deplored. It is of the greatest importance, especially in a voluntary Army, that the officers should be contented and have a feeling that they are being fairly and properly treated. Unless this feeling exists the service is bound to become unpopular, and, taking into consideration the great difficulty we have at this time in getting officers for the Cavalry, it is of the greatest importance that a feeling of security should be encouraged amongst the officers, and a feeling that their interests and. prospects are not the sport of chance, or, worse still, of favouritism. I can conceive nothing worse for the recruiting of the Cavalry than that a feeling of insecurity as to their prospects should exist among the seniors.
  As we have just heard from the noble and gallant Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Dundonald, this question of officers is the greatest problem you have to face in military matters, and it is, therefore, highly important that it should be dealt with wisely. It is essential that no feeling of injustice or even of soreness should be allowed to exist. I am perfectly well aware that the two senior captains in the Royal Dragoons had not passed for their promotion. They had passed in everything but one subject, and the Army Council, I believe, ruled them out of court on that account. But, my Lords, I think there were special circumstances to be considered in this case. The vacancy occurred in the regiment, on February 2nd, and Major Wood was not gazetted to the regiment till March 14th. During this interval, between the vacancy and the gazetting of Major Wood, these two officers had been up (on March 1st) and had passed their examinations, and I think that, considering the services these officers had rendered to the country, some slight period of grace might have been allowed them. Captain the Hon. A. Hamilton Russell served in South Africa in 1899–1902, his service including the relief of Ladysmith, actions at Colenso, Spion Kop, Vaal Kranz, and operations in Natal, Orange River Colony, the Transvaal and Cape Colony. He was shot through the leg and body, was mentioned in despatches, and received the Queen's medal, 3 clasps, and the King's medal, 2 clasps. Captain H. D.

  125
  McNeill served in South Africa, 1899–1902, his service including the relief of Ladysmith, actions at Colenso, Spion Kop, Vaal Kranz, Tugela Heights and Pieters Hill, and operations in Natal, Orange River Colony, and the Transvaal. He was twice mentioned in despatches and received the Queen's medal, six clasps, and the King's medal, two clasps. I think that such records should have entitled these officers to some latitude, especially as they happened to be eligible before there was time for the gazetting of Major Wood.
  But supposing that these two officers are put out of the court, the third captain—CaptainT. M.S. Pitt—who came next to them had passed his examination. Captain Pitt served in South Africa, 1899–1902, his service including the relief of Ladysmith, actions at Spion Kop, Vaal Kranz, Tugela Heights and Pieters Hill, and operations in Natal, Orange River Colony and the Transvaal. He was three times mentioned in despatches and received the Queen's medal, six clasps, and the King's medal, two clasps. Altogether there were nineteen officers in this regiment superseded, all of whom had war service, and several of whom were mentioned in despatches. Major Wood, T may say, also had an honourable record in South Africa. He was present at all the earlier battles up to, I think, Maggersfontein, as an adjutant of mounted Infantry, and he was present at the relief of Kimberley; but I think he was only sixteen months in South Africa altogether. During nine months of that time he was acting as Military Secretary to Sir F. Forestier-Walker at the Cape, so that his service at the front was of six months' duration, whilst the officers who were superseded had solid service of three years at the front.
  I believe it is the opinion at the War Office that these officers had too little service to be promoted, and it is said that the average of service for promotion to cavalry majors is fourteen years. On reference to the Army List I find that there are six majors serving at the present moment who are junior to the two officers to whom I have referred. General Sir John French, I believe, got his majority in nine years and his regiment in fifteen years. Therefore, I think it would be absurd to say that officers who have twelve years
  126
  experience, including three years in command of a squadron on active service, have too little service to be promoted. What do the War Office do? They say— "Twelve years experience in the Cavalry is not enough to allow us to promote these men. We will promote somebody with no experience at all." It is quite impossible to set a service of three or four months with the mounted Infantry against the three years that these officers served in the field. This practice would not, I think, be so objectionable if it only referred to subalterns or to junior captains. They would have time and opportunity to learn their business before they were put into responsible positions, but a squadron leader is in a very important position. He has to instruct his men in every branch of the service, and it is of the greatest importance that he should have considerable experience of Cavalry work for many years. It can hardly be put forward that a captain of Infantry of seventeen years can have this experience, or that a few months service in the mounted Infantry would give it to him.
  Now, what will be the position of this officer when he first joins the Royal Dragoons? The first thing they will do with him will be to put him into the riding school with the recruits— not, I venture to think, a very dignified post for a field officer. Then there is another contention, that Staff College Officers are much wanted in the cavalry. No amount of Staff College education will make a good cavalry leader. I should like to point out, as examples of successful Cavalry leaders during the late war, Sir John French, General Scobel, and General Rimington, who never passed through this course at all. There is another reason why Staff College Officers are not always an advantage to the Cavalry or to any regiment. It is that they very naturally get Staff billets and go away from the regiment altogether. There is a very good example of this in the Royal Dragoons, where the senior Major at the present moment, who, by the way, also came from an Infantry regiment originally, has been on the Staff since 1897, during which time he has been absolutely useless to the regiment.
  It is not without considerable reluctance that I have brought this question before your Lordships, I fully appreciate the

  127
  objection to bringing matters of discipline before Parliament. I admit that under ordinary circumstances these questions are far better dealt with by the military authorities, but I venture to submit that this is not an ordinary question. I think there is a principle involved in it which is vital to the Cavalry. I contend that if it were inadvisable to give the step regimentally, some Cavalry captain of experience could have been found whose appointment would not have given rise to these disadvantages, and a feeling of injustice would have been avoided. The Selection Board ought to be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Their task is admittedly a difficult one, and I think they should study to avoid any action which is likely to give rise to feelings of injustice or favouritism.
  It would be idle, however, to conceal from your Lordships that there is in the Army, and in the Cavalry especially, a very strong feeling at the present moment that Major Wood's promotion was not justified by the circumstances. Rightly or wrongly this feeling has got abroad, and I venture to think it is very detrimental to the Service. On his promotion Major Wood passes over four captains in the Devonshire regiment, he passes over thirteen captains in the Cavalry, and 588 captains in the Army. It is not only the senior officers whose promotion is delayed, but the promotion of every officer right through the regiment. The regiment was, I am told, very highly reported on by the Inspector-General of Cavalry in India, and, as your Lordships are aware, this result must be due in a great measure to the exertions of the squadron leaders. How has this been rewarded? The work of the squadron leaders has been rewarded by their promotion being stopped. This is hardly an inducement to further efforts. If officers are so treated no one can be surprised that the service is unpopular.
  Then, my Lords, the sense of injustice in this particular case has been intensified by a statement of the Secretary of State for War in which he told us that efficiency should always be rewarded. The efficiency in this case, as I said just now, has been rewarded by the stoppage of promotion. The fact is that since; the abolition of the Inspector-General of Cavalry there is nobody at headquarters; of sufficient weight to look after the interests of the Cavalry properly. If
  128
  General Keith Fraser or General Sir George Luck had been at the War Office in their old positions and with their old authority, I venture to think they would have entered a very vigorous protest against this promotion and it never would have taken place. The only real way of rectifying this injustice which has been perpetrated on the cavalry would be to cancel the appointment, but perhaps this is more than I can hope for. The War Office, as I contend, has made a bad mistake and perpetrated an injustice, but I conclude they will stick to their guns. I confess I do not expect to get very much satisfaction out of the question, I but I have a faint hope that the practice may be discontinued in the future. I should like also to say that this practice is unknown in any Continental Army. My noble friend, Lord Basing, who commanded the Royal Dragoons throughout the whole of the war, will state to your Lordships the feeling that exists in the regiment.
  LORD BASING: My Lords, before the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War replies to the Question which has been put co him, I trust he will excuse me if I make a few remarks on a subject which very closely concerns me, as I commanded the Royal Dragoons right up to the date of this promotion. No doubt outside promotion is in many cases both desirable and necessary, but I think you will agree that in every case the special circumstances should be most closely considered, and more especially the state of efficiency of the regiment at the time. Nothing is so disheartening as for good work to be ignored, and this is especially the case in the higher ranks. Speaking from my experience as a Cavalry officer, I utterly fail to see how the promotion of an infantry officer to be squadron major can be other than detrimental to the efficiency of the cavalry.
  What would be said if a selected infantry Staff College officer were put to command a battery of artillery? Yet this is a precisely similar appointment. The position of Cavalry squadron leader requires just as much technical knowledge and skill as that of a battery commander. I venture to think that had the Selection Board considered the humiliating position in which the officers

  129
  of this regiment would be placed, or had they considered the record and the claims of the officers who wore passed over, the appointment would never have been made. The rule is made, and it becomes the law of the Modes and Persians. Because a senior captain is three weeks late in passing his examination, a great hardship and injustice is done to all the junior ranks. Captain McNeill, the second senior captain, has had a most distinguished record. He was not only five years squadron leader and several times recommended for promotion for gallantry in the field, but, more than that, he has been several times recommended since the war for accelerated promotion. Yet his claims are set aside.
  I have heard it said that the War Office finds some difficulty in obtaining a supply of Cavalry officers. Can it be wondered at? What encouragement do they get? I can assure your Lordships that nothing damps ardour and zeal so much as merit unrecognised, and I venture to say that if this state of things is to improve the Selection Board must deal with Cavalry officers with more tact and consideration.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I am sorry that any noble Lord should suppose that any injustice has been done. I must decline to discuss the merits or demerits of certain Cavalry officers, and I rather regret that the noble Lord has brought forward the question in this way. This is a matter the responsibility for which rests with the Selection Board. Major Wood was appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Board, and, of course, your Lordships will understand, if you have promotion by selection, that someone must be passed over. I regret very much that the noble Earl used the word favouritism, which I think was very ill-advised. When I tell your Lordships who compose the Selection Board, I think you will agree that unless a very strong case is made out the matter should not be brought before Parliament. The Board consists of Field Marshal the Duke of Connaught——
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWK: Ho was not there.
  THE EARL OF ERROLL: He was not in the country.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: But he is not the only Member of the Board. There are other officers upon it who, I venture to say, are quite as much above suspicion of favouritism as the noble Duke, the Duke of Connaught himself. There are on the Board all the general officers in the great commands, and there is the Military Secretary to the Secretary of State. I am sure it is not desirable for us to discuss the qualifications of those distinguished men. Unless we have a clear and positive case of something having been done contrary to justice or in a spirit of favouritism, I think we ought to accept, as we have promotion by selection the recommendations of the Selection Board. I should like to mention that the officer selected, Major Wool, has passed the Staff College, has had sixteen and a half years experience, aid was adjutant and staff officer of mounted infantry in South Africa.
  THE EARL OF ERROLL: Will the noble Earl say how long he was adjutant?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I cannot give that information; I have not got it. The average service at which Cavalry captains are now obtaining the rank of major is fourteen years and three months. Major Wood, therefore, had two and a half years' service more. There are only, I am informed, eight captains who have passed for promotion in the Cavalry who are recommended for accelerated promotion, and their average service is just over eleven years. Only one officer has above the average service at which the rank is now being reached, and he has not passed the Staff College. In giving these figures to the House I do not wish for one moment to imply that I think it is befitting that we should go-behind the decision of the Selection Board.
  LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I had no intention when I came down to the House of taking part in this discussion to-night, but remarks have been made by the noble Earl opposite regarding the Selection Board which I have not the slightest intention to let pass in silence. Fortunately for myself, I was absent from that Board on leave, and, therefore, like the Duke of Connaught, I have had nothing whatever to do with this promotion; but it is most unfair to say

  131
  that we on the Selection Board have anything whatever to do with favouritism. It so happens that Sir John French is a member of that Board, and I do not suppose that there is any one who holds the confidence of the Cavalry more than Sir John French, and he at any rate is responsible, with the other members who were present, for the appointment. The noble Earl says that we are now in want of the advice of the Director-General of Cavalry. On the contrary, we have before us in connection with every promotion in the Cavalry the Director of Cavalry, General Baden-Powell, and he has the confidence of the Army and the Cavalry.
  THE EARL OF ERROLL: I said there was no Inspector-General. General Baden-Powell is not Inspector-General, and consequently has not the weight and authority that the officer had who used to hold that position.
  LORD METHUEN: I traverse that statement entirely. General Baden-Powell has our confidence, and we always listen to what he says. Whenever we make a promotion the head of the Department concerned attends, and we listen to him before giving the appointment. As regards the promotion in question, we never make any difference with regard to an officer who is not qualified at the time to take the step, and that must be thoroughly well known to Lord Basing. If we once made an exception and allowed an officer to get his step who had not passed for promotion at the time that step was vacant, we should never hear the end of it. I think that a thoroughly fair rule, and the officers of the Royal Dragoons have simply themselves to blame for not being ready with a senior officer to take the step that was vacant. Let me most strongly protest, in the interests of discipline, that this question should come up, either before the House of Lords or in another place. I do not believe that I go to the Selection Board at any time without losing a friend, and all I can tell you is that if your Lordships are to bring forward questions in Parliament you only render our position ten times more difficult. I can assure you that we carry out our work to the best of our ability in the interests of the Army and quite free from all favouritism.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I am not going to enter into the merits of this case, but I wish to add a few words to the protest of the noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down. I feel strongly that unless there is some case of gross misconduct, corruption, or favouritism to be brought before Parliament, it is most inadvisable that the proceedings of the Selection Board should be questioned in this House or in the other House of Parliament. I do not say that it is contrary to order, but I do think it is calculated to break down the system of selection; and while I can quite understand the feelings of the two noble and gallant Lords opposite on a case which may affect themselves or their friends, I do enter my serious' protest against proceedings of this kind tending to criticise the conduct of a Board which I believe to be entirely above criticisms of that kind.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, some noble Lords seem to think that my noble friend in raising this Question suggested that this was a case of favouritism. I did not hear him say that, and I think I shall be within the recollection of many noble Lords when I say that he did not raise it on that ground. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary gave us absolutely no reason for the appointment which the Selection Board have made, but enumerated the admitted qualifications of Major Wood for promotion saying nothing as to his qualifications for being promoted over the heads of others who were qualified. I venture to think that the noble Earl, who has had plenty of notice of this Question, might have given more information to the House than he has done. I do not think the noble Lord who raised this Question did so in any partisan spirit or in any other spirit than a desire for information, but I venture to think that no explanation has been given, and the matter still remains, so far as I am concerned, a mystery.

  STREET BETTING [H.L.] [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, this Bill is identically word for word in the same

  133
  form in which it left your Lordships' House last year. As your Lordships were good enough to pass it through its stages last year, I hope you will extend the same favour to it this year. Unfortunately, the state of business in the other House did not permit of its becoming law last session. The object of the Bill is to strengthen the penalties, and in certain events to enable the magistrates to send to prison without the option of a fine persons who are found frequenting public places for the purpose of betting. Your Lordships will remember that evidence was given before the Select Committee of the extent to which betting is carried on with children as well as adults. The evil which this Bill is intended to mitigate has not decreased during the last year, but, if I may judge from the newspapers, has rather increased. I beg to move the Second Heading of the Bill.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2*a—(Lord Davey.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I certainly did object to the form in which the noble and learned Lord opposite moved this Bill last year. He was good enough, however to meet my objections, and I offered no opposition to the Third Heading of the Bill after ho had amended it in the way I suggested. I propose offering no objection now.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  COOLIE REPATRIATION.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the regulations defining the terms and the conditions under which the indentured coolies in the Transvaal will be repatriated have been drafted, and when these will be laid before the House. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to remind him that in the Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 2026, it is laid down that every Chinese labourer who has signed the contract of service shall be carried from the port of embarkation in China to the port of debarkation in Natal in a ship whose master holds a certificate
  134
  from the official mentioned in the Regulations. Another clause in the Regulations lays down that every labourer on being repatriated to China shall be convoyed only in a ship the master of which is in possession of a certificate authorising him to carry labourers. The Ordinance, therefore, clearly contemplated that Chinese coolies should be carried in special ships. I do not think these ships can be great in number, and I should be glad if the noble Earl could inform the House whether the coolies under the new repatriation order will come under the terms of the old arrangement, or whether fresh arrangements will be made for them specially with regard to their conveyance on board ship back to China.
  I see it is stated that the estimated cost of repatriation will be £17 10s. per head, and I should like to ask the noble Earl whether this amount will cover the cost of transporting the coolies from the mine to China, or only from the port of embarkation to the port of debarkation. It is stated in the notification addressed to the Chinese indentured labourers that a Chinaman will have to show that he has made an effort to earn money before the Government will be prepared to pay his passage home. Can the noble Earl tell me how much money a Chinaman will have to show himself possessed of before the superintendent can say he is qualified for a passage home, and, if his petition is granted, how much of the passage money will be paid by the coolie and by the British Government respectively?
  The noble Earl has laid it down that penalties for the wilful deception of the Superintendent of Foreign Labour will be inflicted. Can we know whether a list of those penalties will be laid before Parliament, or whether they will be included in the repatriation orders which are to be posted in the mines of the Witwatersrand? If the noble Earl can give us any information on these points it would be a source of gratification. The noble Earl is aware that under the terms of the old Ordinance the Governor-General was entitled to draw up fresh Regulations. Can the noble Earl inform us whether the Government intend to exercise the right provided for in the Ordinance, of drawing up fresh Regulations to meet this particular repatriation order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, the noble Duke has put to me several specific Questions which are not on the Paper, but I will endeavour to answer them as far as I can. He wishes to know whether the coolies are to be carried in special ships. I understand that those who will return to China under this particular provision will be repatriated in the same manner as the other coolies who have been repatriated hitherto. A very considerable number of coolies have already been repatriated. Up to January last 198 coolies had purchased their discharge, and the total number repatriated from all causes, including illness and bad character, was 1,956. I cannot tell the noble Duke under what particular Regulations the Governor-General has arranged for the repatriation of the coolies. I have no doubt that those repatriated under the new order will be sent back in ships similar to those hitherto utilised for the purpose.
  With regard to the cost, I understand that £17 10s. is the full cost of taking the coolie home. I do not think it is limited to the port of embarkation. As to how much of that money will be contributed by the coolie, the noble Duke will see that that is one of a series of Questions I cannot possibly answer at the present moment. The position is this. We put a scheme before the High Commissioner early in the year. At the end of March the High Commissioner sent us certain proposals which were announced in the other House and which I think the noble Duke had before him, and in sending those proposals to us Lord Selborne asked us, if we accepted them as being an adequate performance of the pledges of the Government, to give him our full confidence in carrying out the details. We willingly accepted that condition. The High Commissioner, has, since then, drawn up a notification, which has been published in this country and which is now, I believe, posted in the mines, but, until that notification has been acted upon, and we are aware of the number of coolies that will come forward under it, and the conditions under which they come forward—such as the reasons for which they wish to be repatriated and the amount they may be able to contribute—I do not suppose the High Commissioner is in a position to give us
  136
  details of the regulations as to the further steps that he might propose to take in carrying out the whole scheme. His Majesty's Government are prepared to trust the High Commissioner in these respects, and I venture to hope that noble Lords opposite will not be behindhand in giving the same confidence to Lord Selborne.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.